I'm sorry my answer is the same. I find the silence of boot-licking whites to be more of a threat than any social justice claims those taking the knee allude to. Everyone knows this movement started and continues mainly because of police brutality. People are still currently protesting in St. Louis Missouri not "for social justice" but because yet another cop got off the hook for murdering a black man that was no threat to him.

For me, the much greater threat is the boot of government. Change to our tax laws, living wage, etc., would take years to wind itself through our congress. The more immediate threat (at over 1000 lives lost every year from cops in this country and many more maimed for the rest of their lives) imho is the boot of government and the incredible violence cops have perpetrated on the American people.

Don't you realize that stronger discrimination laws, more progressive taxation, living wage, etc = more government = more police brutality?

What specifically do you think should be done about the problem?

Edit:

If it was just about police brutality I wouldn't be irritated but it's not. Here is a quote from Kaepernick, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."

Don't you realize that stronger discrimination laws, more progressive taxation, living wage, etc = more government = more police brutality?

I think you are taking the cart before the horse. Those issues you state are issues that will take years to wind through congress; during this time if we stand with those who kneel against police brutality we can discuss solutions with them. Choosing to stand with the bootlickers and state worshipers (the way some here have said they would) immediately gives cops the extra incentive to be even more violent. If white people choose to stand with those who kneel and carry signs against police brutality that gives a strong signal to cops to step back and reconsider their violence.

Originally Posted by Madison320

What specifically do you think should be done about the problem?

Exactly what I've believed since the start of the Black Lives Matter protests. And that would be that white people stand with them against police brutality and carry signs that are against police brutality. And through aligning with them we can show them the statistics that cops are battering white people as much as black people. That it is not a racial problem but instead a problem with out of control cops. A lot of them only see what's going on in their own neighborhoods and are unaware of what the true statistics are.

I think you are taking the cart before the horse. Those issues you state are issues that will take years to wind through congress; during this time if we stand with those who kneel against police brutality we can discuss solutions with them. Choosing to stand with the bootlickers and state worshipers (the way some here have said they would) immediately gives cops the extra incentive to be even more violent. If white people choose to stand with those who kneel and carry signs against police brutality that gives a strong signal to cops to step back and reconsider their violence.

Exactly what I've believed since the start of the Black Lives Matter protests. And that would be that white people stand with them against police brutality and carry signs that are against police brutality. And through aligning with them we can show them the statistics that cops are battering white people as much as black people. That it is not a racial problem but instead a problem with out of control cops. A lot of them only see what's going on in their own neighborhoods and are unaware of what the true statistics are.

"If it was just about police brutality I wouldn't be irritated but it's not. Here is a quote from Kaepernick, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."

As far as standing with the protestors against police brutality, that might help a tiny bit in the short run, but it won't do anything in the long run. We need more freedom/capitalism and less socialism/tyranny.

Exactly what I've believed since the start of the Black Lives Matter protests. And that would be that white people stand with them against police brutality and carry signs that are against police brutality. And through aligning with them we can show them the statistics that cops are battering white people as much as black people. That it is not a racial problem but instead a problem with out of control cops. A lot of them only see what's going on in their own neighborhoods and are unaware of what the true statistics are.

Absolutely not. Black Lives Matter is a domestic terrorist group that promotes Communist ideals. It is disgusting that police don't face the same penalties for raiding the wrong houses, unleashing dogs on innocent people and general abuses. But Black Lives Matter someone how manages to make the police look less terrible. Blocking traffic is never okay. Looting is never okay. I am not for murdering protesters but a driver should not have to stop their vehicle for more than a couple of seconds for these people. And anyone who breaks into a store and steals something should back that up with their life. A store owner should not have to tolerate being robbed and have their merchandise destroyed.

"If it was just about police brutality I wouldn't be irritated but it's not. Here is a quote from Kaepernick, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."

You have specifically chosen to ignore Kaepernick's entire statement; instead you sliced off the part of his statement which proves his main concern is about police violence and police brutality not social justice concerns. Here is Kaepernick's entire statement that you alluded to including the part which you sliced off:

Colin Kaepernick: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. "To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

Originally Posted by Madison320

As far as standing with the protestors against police brutality, that might help a tiny bit in the short run, but it won't do anything in the long run.

I disagree. It has already put body cameras on cops in this country. Just imagine how much more could be changed if white people would stand with those who kneel to protest police brutality and cops would see that they are truly on notice.

"If it was just about police brutality I wouldn't be irritated but it's not. Here is a quote from Kaepernick, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."

As far as standing with the protestors against police brutality, that might help a tiny bit in the short run, but it won't do anything in the long run. We need more freedom/capitalism and less socialism/tyranny.

Kaepernick went Ghana on the 4th of July to seek freedom and independence. You want to know what country I don't want America to be like? GHANA. Living on $4 a day like an animal without sewers and clean water is not freedom. Jesus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_...ation_in_Ghana

I think you are taking the cart before the horse. Those issues you state are issues that will take years to wind through congress; during this time if we stand with those who kneel against police brutality we can discuss solutions with them. Choosing to stand with the bootlickers and state worshipers (the way some here have said they would) immediately gives cops the extra incentive to be even more violent. If white people choose to stand with those who kneel and carry signs against police brutality that gives a strong signal to cops to step back and reconsider their violence.

Exactly what I've believed since the start of the Black Lives Matter protests. And that would be that white people stand with them against police brutality and carry signs that are against police brutality. And through aligning with them we can show them the statistics that cops are battering white people as much as black people. That it is not a racial problem but instead a problem with out of control cops. A lot of them only see what's going on in their own neighborhoods and are unaware of what the true statistics are.

I'm out of rep for you, too. When this whole BLM thing started, the liberty people should have been involved. Hell, I probably said as much years ago on here. That would have been much more worthwhile than getting behind Rand watering down the message to the point where we don't even have libertarians here anymore, just skinheads and Trumpcucks. Who cares what their economic views are? They aren't protesting for a living wage or socialism. We don't have to agree with them on that. They are protesting cops murdering black people. They murder white people and brown people and every other type of person too, so why not get behind them on that?

Not to mention, they aren't the only ones who want a living wage and socialism, so that stuff is going to happen anyway. Attacking these people isn't going to stop it, but it does do an excellent job of racializing an issue that should unite everyone. It gives the media everything they need to focus on race and not on the murderous pigs.

. When this whole BLM thing started, the liberty people should have been involved. Hell, I probably said as much years ago on here. That would have been much more worthwhile than getting behind Rand watering down the message to the point where we don't even have libertarians here anymore, just skinheads and Trumpcucks. Who cares what their economic views are?

Good point. Instead of backing the most libertarian Senator in US history, because he wasn't radical enough (LOL), "libertarians" should be out marching with a group that explicitly advocates a Communist platform. BLM explicitly advocates communal ownership of natural resources on top of reparations, free college, free health care, higher minimum wages and all their other insanity. Libertarians really should support a group that has advocated looting as an effective means of protest. And libertarians should really associate with a group that has resulted in innocent officers being assassinated.

Good point. Instead of backing the most libertarian Senator in US history, because he wasn't radical enough (LOL), "libertarians" should be out marching with a group that explicitly advocates a Communist platform. BLM explicitly advocates communal ownership of natural resources on top of reparations, free college, free health care, higher minimum wages and all their other insanity. Libertarians really should support a group that has advocated looting as an effective means of protest. And libertarians should really associate with a group that has resulted in innocent officers being assassinated.

Yes, you did good. Look at Rand now. And your president. I know you're proud of your guy Trump. Get the $#@! out here with this $#@!. You weren't a Ron Paul guy, so I can't even remind you of how Ron looked at coalitions with guys across the aisle that disagreed with him on everything except one issue. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. You can get back to your pledge of allegiance and whichever of Bill O'Reilly's books you were reading.

Absolutely not. Black Lives Matter is a domestic terrorist group that promotes Communist ideals. It is disgusting that police don't face the same penalties for raiding the wrong houses, unleashing dogs on innocent people and general abuses. But Black Lives Matter someone how manages to make the police look less terrible. Blocking traffic is never okay. Looting is never okay. I am not for murdering protesters but a driver should not have to stop their vehicle for more than a couple of seconds for these people. And anyone who breaks into a store and steals something should back that up with their life. A store owner should not have to tolerate being robbed and have their merchandise destroyed.

No freedom loving person should support Black Lives Matter.

Not all those in the Black Lives Matter movement, especially the leaders, believe in violence. In fact I would argue those perpetrating violence are the minority not the majority of this movement. Of course the MSM centers completely on those that are violent and plays their violence over and over and over again so that white people will not respect them. There are many individuals in that movement that oppose the violence; I listened to many videos where people who have peacefully protested stated that those caught doing violence were actually from out of state and not from their local communities. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Again: I find the silence of boot-licking whites to be more of a threat than any social justice claims those taking the knee allude to. Everyone knows this movement started and continues mainly because of police brutality. People are still currently protesting in St. Louis Missouri not "for social justice" but because yet another cop got off the hook for murdering a black man that was no threat to him.

Your concerns:

Blocking traffic is never okay. A driver should not have to stop their vehicle for more than a couple of seconds for these people.

Looting is never okay. Anyone who breaks into a store and steals something should back that up with their life. A store owner should not have to tolerate being robbed and have their merchandise destroyed.

Fair enough. But all in this movement are not doing this; the MSM highlights those that do in order to divide and conquer. Furthermore, blocking traffic and looting (while wrong) is not even in the same category as murdering and maiming people for the rest of their lives which occurs in this country on a daily basis. Broken windows can be replaced; over 1000 lives per year lost to police violence cannot.

Yes, you did good. Look at Rand now. And your president. I know you're proud of your guy Trump. Get the $#@! out here with this $#@!. You weren't a Ron Paul guy, so I can't even remind you of how Ron looked at coalitions with guys across the aisle that disagreed with him on everything except one issue. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. You can get back to your pledge of allegiance and whichever of Bill O'Reilly's books you were reading.

I didn't vote for Trump. I was strongly against Trump being President. I made hundreds of posts against him and made exactly zero posts supporting him. Feel free to look at the hundreds of posts I made against Trump starting in July of 2015 and you won't see any posts supporting him. None. I did vote for Ron. Twice. That said, I didn't hold him up as some sort of god or ideal though. I saw him as what he was, a protest vote, who was pretty good on the issues. I like Ron in the same way I like Raul Labrador, Rand, Mark Sanford. He's good. I never agreed with him on his support of Kucinich and Sanders. And I despise people like Glenn Greenwald and leftists who he was comfortable with.. Those types of people are infinitely less allies than the worst Republicans.

I didn't vote for Trump. I was strongly against Trump being President. I made hundreds of posts against him and made exactly zero posts supporting him. Feel free to look at the hundreds of posts I made against Trump starting in July of 2015 and you won't see any posts supporting him. None. I did vote for Ron. Twice. That said, I didn't hold him up as some sort of god or ideal though. I saw him as what he was, a protest vote, who was pretty good on the issues. I like Ron in the same way I like Raul Labrador, Rand, Mark Sanford. He's good. I never agreed with him on his support of Kucinich and Sanders. And I despise people like Glenn Greenwald and leftists who he was comfortable with.. Those types of people are infinitely less allies than the worst Republicans.

He didn't support Kucinich and Sanders. Working with them on one issue is not an endorsement.

Personally I don't like the whole "standing for the flag" thing, but it doesn't annoy me like the protests because nobody talks about it, it doesn't interfere with the game. Plus what the flag symbolizes is subjective. Maybe to you it represents war but to some it represents liberty or some other things. And people standing for the flag aren't demanding things in any obvious way. The protestors are demanding a "cure" and it's worse than the "disease".

Exactly. There is one objective, self evident and redundant fact: the US flag is the official flag of the US. Everything after that is subjective.

One could get up on their high horse and claim that the US flag represents the wholesale slaughter of the free-roaming and peaceful American Bison, and they could take a knee during the national anthem. But for them to claim that it is the one and only possible meaning behind the flag is beyond ludicrous.

Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

I'm out of rep for you, too. When this whole BLM thing started, the liberty people should have been involved. ...

Yeah, those damn "liberty" people never cared about unjustified Police killing of people. Or any other abuses by law enforcement and infringement of basic (and Constitutional) rights. Good thing that Kaepernick brought this to the attention of the "liberty" people. They would have continued completely oblivious to this outrage forever.

Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

Yeah, those damn "liberty" people never cared about unjustified Police killing of people. Or any other abuses by law enforcement and infringement of basic (and Constitutional) rights. Good thing that Kaepernick brought this to the attention of the "liberty" people. They would have continued completely oblivious to this outrage forever.

Uh, the liberty people were the only ones who cared until BLM came along. And instead of trying to joining up to form a larger group of people to magnify the message, deciding that distancing Rand's followers from them was the prudent political play, the alt-right crowd took over, backed the police, and started pushing separation from the coloreds to preserve their heritage or some bull$#@!. That's working out swimmingly too, I might add.

I'm out of rep for you, too. When this whole BLM thing started, the liberty people should have been involved. Hell, I probably said as much years ago on here. That would have been much more worthwhile than getting behind Rand watering down the message to the point where we don't even have libertarians here anymore, just skinheads and Trumpcucks. Who cares what their economic views are? They aren't protesting for a living wage or socialism. We don't have to agree with them on that. They are protesting cops murdering black people. They murder white people and brown people and every other type of person too, so why not get behind them on that?

Not to mention, they aren't the only ones who want a living wage and socialism, so that stuff is going to happen anyway. Attacking these people isn't going to stop it, but it does do an excellent job of racializing an issue that should unite everyone. It gives the media everything they need to focus on race and not on the murderous pigs.

What makes you think liberty people would be welcome? Again, you have not been paying attention.

Yes, that represents all of them, correct? Then fight back if they attack. You're a Donald Trump alpha male, right? Surely, you aren't afraid of a little street fight. Let the media cover a group of black police protestors fighting a group of libertarian, white (and whoever else came along) police protestors. Then they at least have to show that there are two large groups protesting police murders.

I didn't vote for Trump. I was strongly against Trump being President. I made hundreds of posts against him and made exactly zero posts supporting him. Feel free to look at the hundreds of posts I made against Trump starting in July of 2015 and you won't see any posts supporting him. None. I did vote for Ron. Twice. That said, I didn't hold him up as some sort of god or ideal though. I saw him as what he was, a protest vote, who was pretty good on the issues. I like Ron in the same way I like Raul Labrador, Rand, Mark Sanford. He's good. I never agreed with him on his support of Kucinich and Sanders. And I despise people like Glenn Greenwald and leftists who he was comfortable with.. Those types of people are infinitely less allies than the worst Republicans.

And there's the problem in a nutshell. Ron Paul separates himself from traditional Republicans on issues of war and civil liberties. He aligns himself on those issues with people he agrees with... Kucinich and Glenn Greenwald respectively because traditional Republicans believe the exact opposite of what he believes on those issues.

While economic issues can be fought out over years in congress, the more immediate concern imho is war and police violence because lives are being lost in this country and elsewhere everyday.

You actually seem to equate the violence of looting with the violence of murdering a human life. Broken windows can be replaced; over 1000 lives being violently taken per year by out of control cops cannot be replaced. While both are wrong, one is far worse than the other. That you equate the two as if they are somehow equal just makes my head spin.

Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

And there's the problem in a nutshell. Ron Paul separates himself from traditional Republicans on issues of war and civil liberties. He aligns himself on those issues with people he agrees with... Kucinich and Glenn Greenwald respectively because traditional Republicans believe the exact opposite of what he believes on those issues.

While economic issues can be fought out over years in congress, the more immediate concern imho is war and police violence because lives are being lost in this country and elsewhere everyday.

You actually seem to equate the violence of looting with the violence of murdering a human life. Broken windows can be replaced; over 1000 lives being violently taken per year by out of control cops cannot be replaced. While both are wrong, one is far worse than the other. That you equate the two as if they are somehow equal just makes my head spin.

I'll ask you the same question I asked someone previously. Would you march with the KKK in support of ending discrimination laws?

Exactly. There is one objective, self evident and redundant fact: the US flag is the official flag of the US. Everything after that is subjective. One could get up on their high horse and claim that the US flag represents the wholesale slaughter of the free-roaming and peaceful American Bison, and they could take a knee during the national anthem. But for them to claim that it is the one and only possible meaning behind the flag is beyond ludicrous.

Brian even Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams stated in today's Liberty Report that the meaning of this forced patriotism during sports games is completely related to militarism. That was the whole point to today's Liberty Report. Here are excerpts from today's Report:

Ron Paul: The attitude has changed several years back. […] There is something about military being always at the football game. And a flag as big as the football field. I understand that it hasn’t been forever that they played the national anthem at football games. It sort of came along when they have to build up this super strong support for military to justify the wars they are doing. That’s what they are subtlety doing. If you can praise the military and thank you for their service, they never ask you ‘what was your service’? Oh I went over and killed a bunch of people. I bombed somebody over there even though they didn’t do us any harm. They never raise that question. I didn’t like what the NFL was doing with their allegiance to the patriotism.

Daniel McAdams: Prior to 2009 it was very uncommon for players to be out on the field during the national anthem. They were in their locker rooms. But the military saw this as an opportunity to bring these guys out on the field and really have a display. […] The military branches spent $53 million dollars on pro-sports marketing just between 2012 and 2015. On NASCAR they spent upwards of $100 million dollars including $88 million dollars just on Dell Earnhardt Junior’s car. $88 million dollars to propagandize, to militarize, professional sports. Ron Paul: And that comes much closer to crony capitalism and fascism when you see that connection, but it’s also propaganda. I think it’s war propaganda.

Ron Paul: I think the point has been made that there was a time when the ball players didn’t attend the national anthem. They stayed in the locker room. They didn’t come out until afterwards. Daniel McAdams: It’s relatively new. This whole issue, and it’s because of the DOD money.

And so, if i have to pick a side, I side with those taking a knee. I don't agree with everything they believe in, however, I am grateful that at least someone in this country has the guts to stand up to police violence and forced patriotism at these sports games. Colin Kaepernick has received death threats because of this; if that is not forced patriotism, then what is?

I'll ask you the same question I asked someone previously. Would you march with the KKK in support of ending discrimination laws?

I would stand with the ACLU in their support of the KKK and their right to freedom of speech. Would I actually march with them? If I did my sign would say: "I don't agree with the KKK on race, but freedom of speech should never be suppressed and on those grounds, and only those grounds, I stand with them."

“Force the normies into taking sides. At the moment they are just like "meh, I am minding my own business" retreating culturally into their private bubbles and "safe-spaces" since they don't understand what is going on. When the actual "us vs them" starts, they will be forced to fight or they'll die.” - Anonymous Poster

I would stand with the ACLU in their support of the KKK and their right to freedom of speech. Would I actually march with them? If I did my sign would say: "I don't agree with the KKK on race, but freedom of speech should never be suppressed and on those grounds, and only those grounds, I stand with them."

So when the shoe is on the other foot you change the parameters. It would've been nice if you had given us that consideration.

OK, I'd march with BLM but my sign would say "I stand with BLM against police brutality but I don't agree with their belief in communism and racism".

What's wrong with protesting discrimination laws by that way? Why'd you change that?

So when the shoe is on the other foot you change the parameters. It would've been nice if you had given us that consideration.

OK, I'd march with BLM but my sign would say "I stand with BLM against police brutality but I don't agree with their belief in communism and racism".

What's wrong with protesting discrimination laws by that way? Why'd you change that?

I never changed any parameters. I would support people on the issues I agree with them on. Here was my post:

Originally Posted by Madison320

I'll ask you the same question I asked someone previously. Would you march with the KKK in support of ending discrimination laws?

I would stand with the ACLU in their support of the KKK and their right to freedom of speech. Would I actually march with them? If I did my sign would say: "I don't agree with the KKK on race, but freedom of speech should never be suppressed and on those grounds, and only those grounds, I stand with them."

Originally Posted by Madison320

OK, I'd march with BLM but my sign would say "I stand with BLM against police brutality but I don't agree with their belief in communism and racism".

I think that would be a perfectly valid statement on a sign. Another possibility: "Libertarians against Police Brutality". By virtue of being Libertarian, others know we don't believe in communism and aren't racist.